This was one of my concerns while writing the piece: that it would fit neatly into the conservative platform. I'm not an academic conservative. Not a proponent of a Great Books curriculum, not a formalist. I was trained in cultural studies and prefer interdisciplinary research. I'd rather focus on what literary studies has in common with other disciplines than emphasize something more exclusive, like aesthetics. I think of my stance as a moderate one. There are legitimate concerns about how grading is used as a coercive tool, and I've experimented with a lot of different methods over my career, trying to find the approach that offers some accountability without seeming unduly punitive. But the way the conversation is framed, particularly when antiracist pedagogy is invoked, seems to force people into the political binaries. I was trying to resist that with this piece, perhaps futilely.
I so appreciate the shoutout, Joshua. And the excellent article on grading that deals with subjectivity as a measure: hard to parse but we do agree that standards matter. And the instructor should be able to explain those standards and enforce them.
Thanks, Mary -- maybe you'll have some thoughts on the rubric I share for discussion in the Friday thread! I think we've all had the feeling of knowing an A or a B when we see it and then fitting our judgments to the rubric, but I often felt that if I wrote a rubric well, I was making visible all of those more unconscious judgments. Perhaps you'd agree that giving grades for things like poetry is even more difficult. I felt I could articulate what set a superior personal essay apart from a mediocre one, but poetry is much more difficult to fit into those boxes.
Of course, the larger questions about how much cultural bias plays into either conscious or unconscious judgments of writing quality are thornier. I still contend that genre conventions allow a great deal of latitude and that some of what we're talking about with bias is really a debate about genre and audience.
My use of "conservative" could be misleading. "Traditional" would have been a better choice. I interpreted your polemic as supporting merit over mere participation.
At basic Physics course at U of Iowa in fall, '66 Mr. Figgens would appear from the back room at a random time with an "assigned seat chart" and record attendance which was a significant part of the grade. My roommate Peter Clay paid my then-girlfriend (now-wife) $5 to sit in his seat so he could sleep in. Figgens would often wink at her; Peter aced the tests and got top grade.
In the '80's I was asked to join our kids' grade-school Parent Advisory Board" at Hanawalt in DSM. First meeting I commented on how every kid I knew had received the top grade in every class. Mr. Shaw, the Principal, confessed that with rare exception that was true across the board. I pointed out that this corrupted the purposes of grading: reward and communication. His defense was that he would spend all his time with irate parents if the school did otherwise.
September,'70 Dean Woodrow Morris at U of I College of Medicine went to great lengths to emphasize that "the competition is over--you all made it. Grades here are pass/fail--you are all winners!" First semester I got an "H" for a class and was told it stood for "Honors" which indicated the top 10% in each class. I pointed out the conflict and was told that competitive residency programs had to have some way of identifying the top students . These criteria were also used for selection into Alpha-Omega-Alpha the national honor society for med students.
Bottom line--the competition is never over in any arena.
This is an outstanding piece. So thoughtful. Thanks.
Thanks for reading, Bob. Perhaps one day I'll grow out of the need to write polemics.
I hope that day never comes.
Agree. A classic conservative stance.
This was one of my concerns while writing the piece: that it would fit neatly into the conservative platform. I'm not an academic conservative. Not a proponent of a Great Books curriculum, not a formalist. I was trained in cultural studies and prefer interdisciplinary research. I'd rather focus on what literary studies has in common with other disciplines than emphasize something more exclusive, like aesthetics. I think of my stance as a moderate one. There are legitimate concerns about how grading is used as a coercive tool, and I've experimented with a lot of different methods over my career, trying to find the approach that offers some accountability without seeming unduly punitive. But the way the conversation is framed, particularly when antiracist pedagogy is invoked, seems to force people into the political binaries. I was trying to resist that with this piece, perhaps futilely.
I so appreciate the shoutout, Joshua. And the excellent article on grading that deals with subjectivity as a measure: hard to parse but we do agree that standards matter. And the instructor should be able to explain those standards and enforce them.
Thanks, Mary -- maybe you'll have some thoughts on the rubric I share for discussion in the Friday thread! I think we've all had the feeling of knowing an A or a B when we see it and then fitting our judgments to the rubric, but I often felt that if I wrote a rubric well, I was making visible all of those more unconscious judgments. Perhaps you'd agree that giving grades for things like poetry is even more difficult. I felt I could articulate what set a superior personal essay apart from a mediocre one, but poetry is much more difficult to fit into those boxes.
Of course, the larger questions about how much cultural bias plays into either conscious or unconscious judgments of writing quality are thornier. I still contend that genre conventions allow a great deal of latitude and that some of what we're talking about with bias is really a debate about genre and audience.
❤️❤️🙌
My use of "conservative" could be misleading. "Traditional" would have been a better choice. I interpreted your polemic as supporting merit over mere participation.
At basic Physics course at U of Iowa in fall, '66 Mr. Figgens would appear from the back room at a random time with an "assigned seat chart" and record attendance which was a significant part of the grade. My roommate Peter Clay paid my then-girlfriend (now-wife) $5 to sit in his seat so he could sleep in. Figgens would often wink at her; Peter aced the tests and got top grade.
In the '80's I was asked to join our kids' grade-school Parent Advisory Board" at Hanawalt in DSM. First meeting I commented on how every kid I knew had received the top grade in every class. Mr. Shaw, the Principal, confessed that with rare exception that was true across the board. I pointed out that this corrupted the purposes of grading: reward and communication. His defense was that he would spend all his time with irate parents if the school did otherwise.
September,'70 Dean Woodrow Morris at U of I College of Medicine went to great lengths to emphasize that "the competition is over--you all made it. Grades here are pass/fail--you are all winners!" First semester I got an "H" for a class and was told it stood for "Honors" which indicated the top 10% in each class. I pointed out the conflict and was told that competitive residency programs had to have some way of identifying the top students . These criteria were also used for selection into Alpha-Omega-Alpha the national honor society for med students.
Bottom line--the competition is never over in any arena.
I enjoy your work--keep it up.